10 ms·

I don't recall which of Simone Weil's works this is from, but in terms of suggesting the ineffectiveness of rights, she presented this dialog of one person plea

by a9h74j 5y ago

I don't recall which of Simone Weil's works this is from, but in terms of suggesting the ineffectiveness of rights, she presented this dialog of one person pleading with a much more powerful one: Pleading: But sir, you must respect my rights. Reply: I do not see the necessity of that.

stavros 5y ago
How is an "obligation" not the exact same thing as a "right", just from the other person's perspective? Pleading: But, sir, you must fulfill your obligations. Reply: I do not see the necessity of that.
- stock_toaster 5y ago
  I think the whole point is that it is from the other perspective (they are "jural corelative"?)[1]. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corelative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corelative
- hdjrudni 5y ago
  You didn't flip the dialogue, you just substituted different words. Replier: I should fulfill my obligations to society. Pleader: le suffering Replier: Ya..I should really do that now. It's my duty. That's the difference, the perspective. You aren't asking someone to fulfill their obligations, people are taking it upon themselves because the mindset has shifted. It's now upon you to do the right thing, not hand-wave say "you have rights..but it's someone else's job to realize them"
  - stavros 5y ago
    That's not inherent to the word "obligation" any more than saying "I must do this, it is your right". It's fine as a concept, but saying "instead of talking about rights, we should talk about obligations" doesn't clarify anything, because my right is simultaneously your obligation.
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      Right, but in so doing you're also switching the grammatical subject. The original statement assumes the same subject, moving from rights -> obligations implies a different meaning. I.e., when speaking of myself, "my rights" vs "my obligations" are very different things. Likewise when speaking of society, "our rights" vs "our obligations" also lead to a different dialog. The onus is on what we owe to others, rather than what we are owed, even though such a contract necessarily implies both.
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        Yeah, that makes sense in egalitarian societies, but in real world societies, it means the slaves aren't allowed a voice.
      - stavros 5y ago
        That's exactly my point: Changing the word that's used doesn't matter, what matters is getting people to think of others instead of themselves.
WalterBright 5y ago
There aren't any fundamental rights which require someone else to provide them to you. For example, your right to free speech does not oblige others to provide a platform for you. Now, "rights" can be created by law, but those are a different meaning of the word. A more apt word would be one of "privilege", "license", "obligation" or "power". For example, it is often said that the President has the right to veto legislation. No, he doesn't. He has the power to veto legislation. The words right, privilege, license, obligation, and power are probably the most misused words in the English language.
- arminiusreturns 5y ago
  What Ive noticed on this topic as a staunch proponent of individual rights from their enlightenment and renaissance roots is that far too many people pontificating on this subject don't even know the difference between a negative right and a positive right, nor do they understand the perils and antithetical nature of collective rights.
  - forgatmigej 5y ago
    The right to be ignorant is a negative right - which might be why it is so well spread and used :)
- notriddle 5y ago
  Your post isn't really an argument. It's just contradiction. The whole point of calling rights "ineffective" is to say that this idea of fundamental rights that other people aren't obligated to provide to you has no utility. Your definition doesn't really contain any evidence to the contrary.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > The whole point of calling rights "ineffective" I never wrote that. I welcome you addressing what I did write.
    - 5y ago
willcipriano 5y ago
Doesn't that cut both ways? Pleading: But sir, you must respect my laws. Reply: I do not see the necessity of that.
- didibus 5y ago
  Exactly, people are missing that rights and laws are an agreed upon arrangement to find a set of compromise for everyone to live together happily, which results in stability and often overall growth in economy, invention, social enjoyment and entertainment, etc. You can't just tell someone they're not allowed to take food from your plate, while simultaneously not providing anything for them to eat. There is no longer any plot of land anywhere that is not owned by someone else. Think of those plot of land as plates. One who doesn't own any of it is hungry, you tell them to get their own food, but they can't take from any of the plates of anyone else, so you can't use any land to try and get your food from. Now this person tells those who have all the food, hey I have the right to food as well, and people say, I don't think that's a necessity, well why is your right to your land and your plates of food a necessity as well? You can't have it both ways. If you want to have the right to own the plates of food, you must also provide food to others somehow, because you've taken up all of the abilities to get food from others.
  - pas 5y ago
    > You can't just tell someone they're not allowed to take food from your plate, while simultaneously not providing anything for them to eat. You can, and a lot of people do say this. And it was said many times in history, and ... people were maimed for it regularly. (And every day we get the reports, pictures, videos about people inside a fence saying that those who are outside should just go and try their luck somewhere else.) The whole point is that wordgames are not going to get us the desired utopistic society where people feel that obligation to act to uphold others' rights in accordance to their power/ability for doing so. It needs a culture that cherishes this, enforces this, perpetuates this. In essence we need a control loop that keeps society on track, and this system has to be aware of all the usual problems (the optimal set-point of intolerance of intolerance, top-down systems tend to consolidate power, bottom-up systems can easily oppress minorities, political arbitrage of resources for favors is an ever present problem, and so on).
bendbro 5y ago
That seems like a bad example. In modern society rights are generally enforced by the support of the population via some judicial (or extra-judicial) system.

by a9h74j 5y ago

stavros 5y ago

How is an "obligation" not the exact same thing as a "right", just from the other person's perspective? Pleading: But, sir, you must fulfill your obligations. Reply: I do not see the necessity of that.

stock_toaster 5y ago
I think the whole point is that it is from the other perspective (they are "jural corelative"?)[1]. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corelative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corelative
hdjrudni 5y ago
You didn't flip the dialogue, you just substituted different words. Replier: I should fulfill my obligations to society. Pleader: le suffering Replier: Ya..I should really do that now. It's my duty. That's the difference, the perspective. You aren't asking someone to fulfill their obligations, people are taking it upon themselves because the mindset has shifted. It's now upon you to do the right thing, not hand-wave say "you have rights..but it's someone else's job to realize them"
- stavros 5y ago
  That's not inherent to the word "obligation" any more than saying "I must do this, it is your right". It's fine as a concept, but saying "instead of talking about rights, we should talk about obligations" doesn't clarify anything, because my right is simultaneously your obligation.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    Right, but in so doing you're also switching the grammatical subject. The original statement assumes the same subject, moving from rights -> obligations implies a different meaning. I.e., when speaking of myself, "my rights" vs "my obligations" are very different things. Likewise when speaking of society, "our rights" vs "our obligations" also lead to a different dialog. The onus is on what we owe to others, rather than what we are owed, even though such a contract necessarily implies both.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      Yeah, that makes sense in egalitarian societies, but in real world societies, it means the slaves aren't allowed a voice.
    - stavros 5y ago
      That's exactly my point: Changing the word that's used doesn't matter, what matters is getting people to think of others instead of themselves.

WalterBright 5y ago

There aren't any fundamental rights which require someone else to provide them to you. For example, your right to free speech does not oblige others to provide a platform for you. Now, "rights" can be created by law, but those are a different meaning of the word. A more apt word would be one of "privilege", "license", "obligation" or "power". For example, it is often said that the President has the right to veto legislation. No, he doesn't. He has the power to veto legislation. The words right, privilege, license, obligation, and power are probably the most misused words in the English language.

arminiusreturns 5y ago
What Ive noticed on this topic as a staunch proponent of individual rights from their enlightenment and renaissance roots is that far too many people pontificating on this subject don't even know the difference between a negative right and a positive right, nor do they understand the perils and antithetical nature of collective rights.
- forgatmigej 5y ago
  The right to be ignorant is a negative right - which might be why it is so well spread and used :)
notriddle 5y ago
Your post isn't really an argument. It's just contradiction. The whole point of calling rights "ineffective" is to say that this idea of fundamental rights that other people aren't obligated to provide to you has no utility. Your definition doesn't really contain any evidence to the contrary.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > The whole point of calling rights "ineffective" I never wrote that. I welcome you addressing what I did write.
  - 5y ago

willcipriano 5y ago

Doesn't that cut both ways? Pleading: But sir, you must respect my laws. Reply: I do not see the necessity of that.

didibus 5y ago
Exactly, people are missing that rights and laws are an agreed upon arrangement to find a set of compromise for everyone to live together happily, which results in stability and often overall growth in economy, invention, social enjoyment and entertainment, etc. You can't just tell someone they're not allowed to take food from your plate, while simultaneously not providing anything for them to eat. There is no longer any plot of land anywhere that is not owned by someone else. Think of those plot of land as plates. One who doesn't own any of it is hungry, you tell them to get their own food, but they can't take from any of the plates of anyone else, so you can't use any land to try and get your food from. Now this person tells those who have all the food, hey I have the right to food as well, and people say, I don't think that's a necessity, well why is your right to your land and your plates of food a necessity as well? You can't have it both ways. If you want to have the right to own the plates of food, you must also provide food to others somehow, because you've taken up all of the abilities to get food from others.
- pas 5y ago
  > You can't just tell someone they're not allowed to take food from your plate, while simultaneously not providing anything for them to eat. You can, and a lot of people do say this. And it was said many times in history, and ... people were maimed for it regularly. (And every day we get the reports, pictures, videos about people inside a fence saying that those who are outside should just go and try their luck somewhere else.) The whole point is that wordgames are not going to get us the desired utopistic society where people feel that obligation to act to uphold others' rights in accordance to their power/ability for doing so. It needs a culture that cherishes this, enforces this, perpetuates this. In essence we need a control loop that keeps society on track, and this system has to be aware of all the usual problems (the optimal set-point of intolerance of intolerance, top-down systems tend to consolidate power, bottom-up systems can easily oppress minorities, political arbitrage of resources for favors is an ever present problem, and so on).

bendbro 5y ago

That seems like a bad example. In modern society rights are generally enforced by the support of the population via some judicial (or extra-judicial) system.